The snare of devotion to Mary.

[Rhamiel]

yes, not all schismatics are heretical

 

[Albion]

Would you care to quote these ECFs?

Well, I've quoted them all before. This is not a subject that has avoided discussion on these forums.

So, if I can find those notes, I will do so, but in the meantime I think there are three points that should be made:

1. The fame, prominence, and prestige that attached to the diocese of Rome in the first century should not be confused with any agreement that the bishop or Rome was some Pope figure. Rome was the capital of Empire, the "Eternal City," and Christians, no less than other Romans, tended to see Rome as the focus of things, quite apart from Christ. It remained that way well into the Middle Ages, as a matter of fact. And the Diocese of Rome was the biggest and richest of the Christian centres, so naturally it was looked to and its bishop was inclined use that in order to throw his weight around. None of this should be construed as some divine mandate.

2. Various Early Church Fathers wrote that Peter and Paul jointly were the heads of the Church. Others that James, the bishop of Jerusalem where the Church started, and where the Council of Jerusalem took place, was the rightful head of the Church. I think one ECF saw the three of them as equally sharing that role, and there were still other slants on the subject--if we go by what those Fathers opined.

3. I notice that almost all of your quotations (and possibly all of them, depending on how we look at it) have to be considered late in coming. That's important because the rise of Rome to leadership or at least to claiming leadership was no longer a completely open question by the time some of these ECFs were speaking. Not one of them is from the first century and yet it is at that time, in the lifetime of the Apostles and Clement, that you are hoping to show that the Church Universal looked to Rome. It's not so.

 

[MKJ]

Well, I've quoted them all before. This is not a subject that has avoided discussion on these forums.

So, if I can find those notes, I will do so, but in the meantime I think there are three points that should be made:

1. The fame, prominence, and prestige that attached to the diocese of Rome in the first century should not be confused with any agreement that the bishop or Rome was some Pope figure. Rome was the capital of Empire, the "Eternal City," and Christians, no less than other Romans, tended to see Rome as the focus of things, quite apart from Christ. It remained that way well into the Middle Ages, as a matter of fact. And the Diocese of Rome was the biggest and richest of the Christian centres, so naturally it was looked to and its bishop was inclined use that in order to throw his weight around. None of this should be construed as some divine mandate.

2. Various Early Church Fathers wrote that Peter and Paul jointly were the heads of the Church. Others that James, the bishop of Jerusalem where the Church started, and where the Council of Jerusalem took place, was the rightful head of the Church. I think one ECF saw the three of them as equally sharing that role, and there were still other slants on the subject--if we go by what those Fathers opined.

3. I notice that almost all of your quotations (and possibly all of them, depending on how we look at it) have to be considered late in coming. That's important because the rise of Rome to leadership or at least to claiming leadership was no longer a completely open question by the time some of these ECFs were speaking. Not one of them is from the first century and yet it is at that time, in the lifetime of the Apostles and Clement, that you are hoping to show that the Church Universal looked to Rome. It's not so.

I think to the point too is that had papal authority been undisputed, we would not likely have seen the schism between the western patriarch and every other patriarch, when the former tried to assert those increasing claims to authority over the others.

 

[concretecamper]

The "flattering" comment is also pretty puerile - lots of Churches describe themselves as catholic, or in some cases even title themselves that way as in the case of the Orthodox, but not to try and ape you. They are actually trying to describe an idea.

Yes...many describe themselves as catholic...and they are incorrect.

 

[Albion]

I think to the point too is that had papal authority been undisputed, we would not likely have seen the schism between the western patriarch and every other patriarch, when the former tried to assert those increasing claims to authority over the others.

Absolutely. To hear posters talk as though everyone accepted the Bishop of Rome as undisputed head of the universal church prior to the Great Schism should make every Orthodox Christian on CF interrupt with a "Just a minute there...." but they never seem to.

 

[concretecamper]

You know, that Catholic Church does not teach that.

The Catholic Church says that the original split between the English Church and the Roman Patriarch was a schism, and that it remained so for some time, and that it was not until rather later that they, from a Catholic perspective, lost apostolicity.

If you can't wrap your head around that, you are missing something important about the teachings of your own Church, and you should probably sort that out.

The "fact" that history can speak of is a split. It can't interpret that - history cannot alone tell us which group left the other. It cannot tell us that the Lutherans were wrong and in fact left the Church, or whether the Roman hierarchy had in fact apostatized, or whether they were both out to lunch. Those are interpretations.

Most self-conscious people are able to make some kind of distinction between the facts and interpretations of them, and it is actually pretty impossible to understand facts if you don't know where interpretation comes in, and why you accept one and not another.

The Catholic Church, in my opinion, doesn't have a bad argument for its position. I don't, in the end, think it is correct, but it certainly isn't stupid, many holy and scholarly people believe it. It really doesn't suffer because we know there are different ways of looking at things that are reasonable. the only thing I think that suffers from that is people who are made uncomfortable by knowing that intelligent people can disagree about something like that.

There is a lot to be gained from really thinking about how others see things.

First, you can separate from His Church and not have a formal declaration made.
Second, I am not sure you have coherently communicated what you think my church teaches.
Third, I would love to hear an argument how the Catholic Church is the one that split from the CofE.

 

[MKJ]

Yes...many describe themselves as catholic...and they are incorrect.

Yes, anyone can say this sort of thing.

Catholics ripped apart the Church twice with their overblown view of the papacy. Na na na na na.

Where the heck does it get you though?

 

[MKJ]

Absolutely. To hear posters talk as though everyone accepted the Bishop of Rome as undisputed head of the universal church prior to the Great Schism should make every Orthodox Christian on CF interrupt with a "Just a minute there...." but they never seem to.

They do from time to time, but actually most are used to being lumped in with Catholics by fundamentalists, so they aren't inclined to be jerks about it.

Besides - there really are only a few triumphalist Catholic posters here. Most are more sensible.

 

[MKJ]

First, you can separate from His Church and not have a formal declaration made.
Second, I am not sure you have coherently communicated what you think my church teaches.
Third, I would love to hear an argument how the Catholic Church is the one that split from the CofE.

Rhamiel got the point right away, so I think I was coherent enough. It isn't really mysterious how that was understood - that is a matter of factual history.

If individuals become separated without anyone authoritative making a formal declaration, I don't expect you'd be able to say anything about that, would you? Since you wouldn't know what the CC thinks or the state of their souls.

I don't think I suggested that the CC split from the CofE - I suggested they "left" each other. That is, the English bishops stopped being in communion with the pope. No one really went anywhere. It's a pretty straight forward idea.

Some groups, like the Lutherans, considered that the Church hierarchy had apostatized - that is, they had left the Church doctrinally though still claiming authority to lead it.


You really should try reading about the history of the Reformation and counter-reformation.

 

[concretecamper]

Yes, anyone can say this sort of thing.

Catholics ripped apart the Church twice with their overblown view of the papacy. Na na na na na.

Where the heck does it get you though?

It gets me the security of being part of His Church

 

[concretecamper]

Rhamiel got the point right away, so I think I was coherent enough. It isn't really mysterious how that was understood - that is a matter of factual history.

If individuals become separated without anyone authoritative making a formal declaration, I don't expect you'd be able to say anything about that, would you? Since you wouldn't know what the CC thinks or the state of their souls.

I don't think I suggested that the CC split from the CofE - I suggested they "left" each other. That is, the English bishops stopped being in communion with the pope. No one really went anywhere. It's a pretty straight forward idea.

Some groups, like the Lutherans, considered that the Church hierarchy had apostatized - that is, they had left the Church doctrinally though still claiming authority to lead it.


You really should try reading about the history of the Reformation and counter-reformation.

Oh...the romance of it all....

 

[justinangel]

Proof texting the Fathers is probably no better than proof-texting the Bible. A bunch of cherry-picked quotes without reference to other interpretations, historical events, orother incidents that suggest they aren't the only perspective, isn't really helpful.

Even many Catholic scholars would not agree with you that texts like these show the kind of papal primacy that you are suggesting, or were meant to be understood in the way you are reading them. Generally, the modern understanding of the papacy is seen as a development of doctrine, not something that you can find and pluck out of the Fathers wholesale.

I invite you to examine the historical contexts behind these quotes, which by the way have been used by some Catholic scholars and historians. There are some Catholic scholars and theologians who have questioned many traditional doctrines of the Church, including papal infallibility, but these have been apostates or liberals leaning towards apostasy. There are diverging views among Catholic scholars and theologians in the Catholic Church, but these more or less are invisible. But in the Anglican Church there is a diversity which has resulted in the formation of different churches each with their own set of doctrines and practices all because the idea of a central teaching authority has been an issue among Anglicans for a very long time.

The Christological and Marian doctrines of the Church had also developed over time. It is through the one Apostolic Church - not the Bible - that the divine mysteries become explicit.

PAX

 

[MKJ]

It gets me the security of being part of His Church

I am pretty sure neither the Catholic Church, nor you, get any security because you imagine everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or stupid.

Certainly the Catholics I know don't seem to think that, nor have the last several popes.

 

[MKJ]

I invite you to examine the historical contexts behind these quotes, which by the way have been used by some Catholic scholars and historians. There are some Catholic scholars and theologians who have questioned many traditional doctrines of the Church, including papal infallibility, but these have been apostates or liberals leaning towards apostasy. There are diverging views among Catholic scholars and theologians in the Catholic Church, but these more or less are invisible. But in the Anglican Church there is a diversity which has resulted in the formation of different churches each with their own set of doctrines and practices all because the idea of a central teaching authority has been an issue among Anglicans for a very long time.

The Christological and Marian doctrines of the Church had also developed over time. It is through the one Apostolic Church - not the Bible - that the divine mysteries become explicit.

PAX

I am not talking about liberal scholars, nor ones that have issues of the kind you think about the role of the papacy.

I am in fact talking about solid orthodox Catholics.

If you think that the papacy as understood today is a development of doctrine, by all means say so. But don't try to inappropriately show that was the clear view in the early Church with decontextualized proof-texts.

What Anglicans, or the Bible, have to do with the question I am not sure - you are making the claims here for your church, I haven't made any for mine.

 

[MKJ]

Oh...the romance of it all....

What is that even supposed to mean?

Are you really that unable to see things from different perspectives?

 

[concretecamper]

I am pretty sure neither the Catholic Church, nor you, get any security because you imagine everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or stupid.

Certainly the Catholics I know don't seem to think that, nor have the last several popes.

I went back and reread my posts. Although I am firm in my POV, I never insulted you, called you ignorant or stupid. You however have insulted me a few times. Your behavior has been terrible.

 

[justinangel]

I am not talking about liberal scholars, nor ones that have issues of the kind you think about the role of the papacy.

I am in fact talking about solid orthodox Catholics.

Who might they be, and what exactly have they said?

If you think that the papacy as understood today is a development of doctrine, by all means say so. But don't try to inappropriately show that was the clear view in the early Church with decontextualized proof-texts.

I did say to Albion that in the early Church the Bishop of Rome was recognized as having "universal jurisdictional authority" in settling controversial disputes in matters of doctrine and practice which arose in the churches outside the Roman Patriarchate. The faith professed by the Church at Rome was the standard, so to speak, that all the other churches should follow. I haven't decontextualized anything. I've invited you to explore the historical contexts of these citations among others on your own.

PAX

 

[Albion]

I did say to Albion that in the early Church the Bishop of Rome was recognized as having "universal jurisdictional authority" in settling controversial disputes in matters of doctrine and practice which arose in the churches outside the Roman Patriarchate.

That IS what I understood you to be saying, but we have to point out that you've been misinformed. That was not at all the case, and there is absolutely no evidence from history that would show your scenario to be accurate.

I addressed some of the specifics of your claim, but I guess you chose not to bother with them.

 

[concretecamper]

Who might they be, and what exactly have they said?



I did say to Albion that in the early Church the Bishop of Rome was recognized as having "universal jurisdictional authority" in settling controversial disputes in matters of doctrine and practice which arose in the churches outside the Roman Patriarchate. The faith professed by the Church at Rome was the standard, so to speak, that all the other churches should follow. I haven't decontextualized anything. I've invited you to explore the historical contexts of these citations among others on your own.

PAX

In case you did not have this document...it may be useful to you in the future

THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA. A.D. 343 OR 344.

THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA

 

[MKJ]

I went back and reread my posts. Although I am firm in my POV, I never insulted you, called you ignorant or stupid. You however have insulted me a few times. Your behavior has been terrible.

What you do in almost all of your posts - which is infuriating and comes off as very condecending - is suggest that your perspective is in fact assurely identical to the understanding of the Church. I am sure all of us think we have understood as best we can what the Church thinks, but generally we also know that there is always a potential for us to differ despite our best efforts.

And you do it with absolutely no evidence of putting forth any imagination or effort to seeing what another POV might be. And that is the most important thing in making a discussion fruitful and interesting and above all respectful.

If you make the assumption from the start that people are reasonable, that most major thought systems are reasonable, that they are internally consistent, it goes a long way - some you may discover aren't, but you have to understand them on their own terms before you can really get hold of that. If you further realize in this kind of discussion that there are many great respected scholars, holy people, in most of the major traditions, and that they have respect for each others views, it goes a long way to treating others as if their ideas might have merit.

You don't dialogue with people, you preach at them. That will always be interpreted as thinking they are ignorant and stupid.